Neptuno Treuhand-Und Verwaltungsgesellschaft Mbh v. Arbor

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Illinois has not recognized a cause of action for “negligent referral” and declining to follow Golden Spread and Randi W.
• dismissing negligent-misrepresentation claim because plaintiff’s reliance must be reasonable considering all facts and circumstances, and “[i]f ample opportunity existed to discover the truth, then reliance is not justified”
• “no recovery for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment or negligent misrepresentation is possible unless plaintiffs can prove justifiable reliance, i.e., that any reliance was reasonable
• “no recovery for *** negligent misrepresentation is possible unless plaintiffs can prove justifiable reliance, i.e., that any reliance was reasonable”
• “no recovery for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment or negligent misrepresentation is possible unless plaintiffs can prove justifiable reliance, i.e., that any reliance was reasonable”
• “no recovery for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment or negligent misrepresentation is possible unless plaintiffs can prove justifiable reliance, i.e., that any reliance 18 1-06-1373 was reasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).